for a second i thought this said "republicans and conservative Christians" and was like yeah??? they're the same. but then i remembered how to read.
Advertisement
by Wink Wonk We Like Stonks » Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:19 am
according to legend, i once wrote:agender mars-colony automated decadent libertarian anti-statist degrowth
by Wink Wonk We Like Stonks » Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:20 am
Sundiata wrote:Bahia Roja wrote:
Sounds simple, then. You want to abolish sex work: abolish capitalism. Most women are pushed to sex work because of the economic troubles caused by a capitalist model. Win-win.
Yes, it's going to be a happy day when noone turns to prostitution or pornography as a way to make their livelihood, let alone does in general.
according to legend, i once wrote:agender mars-colony automated decadent libertarian anti-statist degrowth
by Wink Wonk We Like Stonks » Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:23 am
Sundiata wrote:Nevertopia wrote:Here in Canada theres been a social initiative to reclassify sex workers as victims of human trafficking. With outreach and support that brought down the number of sex workers in the DTES of Vancouver. Maybe instead of making it illegal see it for what it is, someone selling their body because they cant make any/enough money any other way.
1.Then help them make money another way? Stop giving up on people. It's disgusting, pathetic, and depraved to pay for sex. Nobody should be pressured into sinking that low, it shouldn't even be an option.
2.Would you want that type of life for your mother? Your sister? Your daughter? Have some decency.
according to legend, i once wrote:agender mars-colony automated decadent libertarian anti-statist degrowth
by Wink Wonk We Like Stonks » Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:24 am
according to legend, i once wrote:agender mars-colony automated decadent libertarian anti-statist degrowth
by Wink Wonk We Like Stonks » Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:25 am
according to legend, i once wrote:agender mars-colony automated decadent libertarian anti-statist degrowth
by Northern Socialist Council Republics » Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:26 am
Wink Wonk We Like Stonks wrote:-snip-
by Wink Wonk We Like Stonks » Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:27 am
according to legend, i once wrote:agender mars-colony automated decadent libertarian anti-statist degrowth
by Wink Wonk We Like Stonks » Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:28 am
according to legend, i once wrote:agender mars-colony automated decadent libertarian anti-statist degrowth
by Wink Wonk We Like Stonks » Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:29 am
Auzkhia wrote:Nevertopia wrote:at the end of the day I think criminalizing prostitution is missing the point. The real problem is people turning to prostitution in the first place and its better focusing on helping change the life circumstances if any that lead to that decision.
Sex Work has existed forever in human society, it is the world's oldest profession.
And like I know some who would do it even if they had their basic needs met
according to legend, i once wrote:agender mars-colony automated decadent libertarian anti-statist degrowth
by Wink Wonk We Like Stonks » Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:31 am
according to legend, i once wrote:agender mars-colony automated decadent libertarian anti-statist degrowth
by Wink Wonk We Like Stonks » Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:33 am
according to legend, i once wrote:agender mars-colony automated decadent libertarian anti-statist degrowth
by Alaska Hawaii and the Aleutes » Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:36 am
AFC News : |International| The Japano-Taiwanese Confederation's president and the Alaskan chancellor will meet in Saipan to discuss the disputed territory of the Iwo Islands | Britannican-Alaskan dispute over the Indian Ocean Territory purchase |National| New Law preventing political monopolies in the provinces | Remembrance of the Untriti massacre a year ago | Man in banana costume tried to rob bank in Aleneva
by Wink Wonk We Like Stonks » Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:42 am
according to legend, i once wrote:agender mars-colony automated decadent libertarian anti-statist degrowth
by Stellar Colonies » Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:47 am
Floofybit wrote:Your desired society should be one where you are submissive and controlled
Primitive Communism wrote:What bodily autonomy do men need?
Techocracy101010 wrote:If she goes on a rampage those saggy wonders are as deadly as nunchucks
Parmistan wrote:It's not ALWAYS acceptable when we do it, but it's MORE acceptable when we do it.
Theodorable wrote:Jihad will win.
Distruzio wrote:All marriage outside the Church is gay marriage.
Khardsland wrote:Terrorism in its original definition is a good thing.
I try to be objective, but I do have some biases.
North Californian.
Stellar Colonies is a loose galactic confederacy.
The Confederacy & the WA.
Add 1200 years.
by Wink Wonk We Like Stonks » Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:48 am
according to legend, i once wrote:agender mars-colony automated decadent libertarian anti-statist degrowth
by Ostroeuropa » Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:53 am
Fahran wrote:In what way are men not sexually liberated? Are we imposing virginity test on y'all? Do y'all have to be occupied by a female relative at all times to prevent you from sneaking off to have conjugal relations? Do y'all lack access to contraception? Do y'all face socially ubiquitous slut-shaming whenever you decide to express your sexuality or behave promiscuously? With regard to problems, you keep point to women engaging in hypergamy. I'm just going to point out that women engaged in that behavior before. It's not a novel development. What's changed is how this is expressed.
I have most often observed incel as a self-applied label for men suffering from social alienation and loneliness - which have become more common of late. This extends, quite prominently I might add, to a notable lack of strong and sustained male friendships. And not all men who suffer from these things take the approach of blaming women for their troubles. I've talked to several of these people. Guess how many have actually asked out more than one woman in a year? Guess how many have a single male friend IRL? Blaming women for incels is taking the easy way out and misdiagnosing the problem.
What?
What do you mean by reproductive rights? Because that can be interpreted as men's sexual liberation requiring women to grant men control over our bodies. I take it this a gripe about how courts tend to stereotype men as not be caretakers - if I'm being charitable about the statement? That's true, but I consider that to have more to do with familial rights than sexual liberation.
You think cat-calling is a legitimate expression of sexuality, huh?
Would you like to hear about the first time I got cat-called and about how it made me feel? I was thirteen years old. I've never dated anybody. I'd never even kissed a boy. A group of three older boys started following me as I walked home alone. They were probably seventeen or eighteen. They whistled at me and taunted me. It scared me so bad that I pulled out my cell phone and called my mom. Then they laughed because they found it funny that they'd freaked out a thirteen year old.
.Seriously, this argument is unbelievably asinine. Men's sexual liberation shouldn't extend to making women and girls actively feel unsafe
And, as you well know from our previous conversation, most women were first cat-called when they were as young as twelve or thirteen.
How about another example, one that a male friend and his girlfriend experienced? They were around sixteen and a much older man, probably in his thirties or forties, began staring at my friend's girlfriend. He shouted "nice ass" from a little ways off. They both felt uncomfortable, they both felt unsafe. Do you still think we should accept cat-calling as a legitimate expression of sexuality?
See above. "I can't say gross things to women and girls anymore so I'm oppressed" is terrible logic.
I mean... men used to receive sole custody of children in the early modern period. Any more balanced approach to child custody was going to be disadvantageous to men. And, thus far, that's really the one valid point you've raised since I see no point in entertaining the notion that cat-calling isn't rapey and inappropriate.
Men have almost never had the same stigma when it comes to having sex. They do have a stigma when it comes to refusing sex, and that should absolutely be brought up more. Because it's a persistent rape myth that women tell about men - they always consent to sex.
Two or three of these are valid. The rest are garbage takes.
We call that sexual harassment and, having experienced it, I can corroborrate that it's remarkably unpleasant and probably shouldn't happen.
I think you have a point about child custody, rape myths that revolve around men, and the perception of men as being sexually dangerous to children. You don't really have any other points beyond that in this conversation.
I don't think you're familiar with Pakistani attitudes towards women because nobody is going to talk about the phenomena we've discussed in this manner in Pakistan itself. And monogamy isn't even obligatory as polygyny still occurs quite widely in some places.
You're exaggerating the role hypergamous sexual selection plays in our society, especially when you liken women's hypergamy to the Klan's anti-Catholicism, and you're also overstating the threat it poses to social cohesion and function. It does exist but it's not nearly as pronounced or unnuanced as the people you're consulting make out.
Fahran wrote:If this were the case, the average age difference in relationships would be around fifteen to twenty years instead of five to seven years. The data regarding relationships suggests that women make educated guesses about the stability of their romantic partners based on level of education, ambition, work ethic, etc. from a financial standpoint.
Waiting at the finish line is a sub-optimal dating strategy.
It's a lot more complicated. Literally, the data doesn't back up a lot of what the manosphere tries to assert because they skew and exaggerate the small portions of it that do seem to support what they have to say until it becomes a practical caricature.
I would argue that, while women being able to work was a substantial change, the current epidemic of singleness, among both young men and young women, has a good deal more to do with atomization and more generalized economic phenomena - that almost recall trends during the processes of industrialization and urbanization in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The advent of feminism itself cannot adequately explain the breakdown in large communal institutions which would have facilitated the creation of social networks, friendships, and romantic relationships in previous decades.
See above. I don't find that to be the principal problem at all, and, in any case, women's attitudes on dating men who meet this description don't seem to have changed too much.
Source on the claim that a woman is more likely to hook up with or date someone that her friends have hooked up with or dated? Additionally, can we get controls for how this relates to men within the same broader social network who have not hooked up with or dated her friends?
Source?
If you don't have a lot of male friends or hobbies that allow for social engagement, the reason you're single isn't really that women are choosing not to dating you. It's that you're not talking to people or participating in society. As I alluded to before, a lot of the incels I've talked to don't even bother asking women out. You can't really blame women for social alienation of that sort, especially when a lot of the more toxic behaviors are reinforced by online peer groups. You can't date a guy you never see or never talk to.
The primary difference is that women are far pickier about their romantic partners than men are. This likely has some evolutionary basis, but, again, we're talking about dating apps as opposed to in-person courtship and dating. The dynamics probably change quite a bit. And, as with financial hypergamy, the statistics on this seem to exaggerate women's proclivities. If we behaved strictly in this manner, eighty percent of women would not marry in a monogamous society.
Hypergamous behavior does occur, but it's not really as pronounced as the manosphere makes out.
A more minor one.
Social liberalism and individualism as well.
by Starblaydia » Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:58 am
by Auzkhia » Mon Jan 11, 2021 9:16 am
by Cordel One » Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:06 am
by Adamede » Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:07 am
Wink Wonk We Like Stonks wrote:Auzkhia wrote:It's interesting how often Radfems and Conservative Christians agree, especially on issues related to gender and sexuality.
for a second i thought this said "republicans and conservative Christians" and was like yeah??? they're the same. but then i remembered how to read.
by The New California Republic » Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:09 am
by The Blaatschapen » Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:12 am
by The New California Republic » Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:17 am
by Ostroeuropa » Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:20 am
by Fahran » Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:02 pm
Wink Wonk We Like Stonks wrote:"new" vs. contemporary. dunno why it's called new when it's just repackaged old sexism for Modern Christian WomenTM.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Cerespasia, Cerula, Cyptopir, Elejamie, Zetaopalatopia
Advertisement